Steppenwolf wrote:Debra_Law wrote:Steppenwolf wrote:
Be careful what you wish for, Steppenwolf. The consequences could be dire for "our progeny" if Roe v. Wade was overturned because the blades of oppression swing both ways.
The primary purpose of the Constitution is to SECURE the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our progeny--for all the generations to come. It is possible that future generations will be faced with population control concerns. Would you want the government to have the power to force you to have an abortion to serve a legitimate state interest in population control?
Due process of law has a substantive component that protects individual liberty from arbitrary (unreasonable) government infringements or deprivations. As set forth in Supreme Court cases, "If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child. . . .The Constitution protects individuals, men and women alike, from unjustified state interference. . . ."
If the Constitution is not interpreted to SECURE an individual's right to privacy, the state would not only have the power to prohibit abortions to serve the state interests, but it would also have the power to require abortions to serve the state interests. Be careful what you wish for and think long about the country you're handing down to your children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. Their problems and issues will be different than ours, but a Constitution that secures liberty from oppressive laws must endure for all time.
Ah yes, I've argued with you at length about this before (A2K is too slow for me to find the thread). As you may or may not recall, I don't believe that Roe and its progeny fit well into the existing corpus of privacy jurisprudence -- excluding the Roe line itself, of course. Excising that line of cases could be achieved with minimal damage to other rights. Nor will I even concede that privacy as a whole should be enshrined in "due process" anyway, although I don't expect the wholesale abandonment of substantive DP any time soon.
Yes, I realize my opinions don't reflect "the law of the land" (existing precedent in Roe, Casey, etc.), as you're fond of saying (if my recollection serves me). I'm also fully aware that DP presently has a substantive component under existing caselaw, however oxymoronic that branch of con law might be. My opinion is based upon what I perceive the law should be, as a matter of textual interpretation and policy, not about what the law is as of the present date. After all, this will ultimately be the argument before the Court should the subject arise again -- and it will. They are free to overrule their own precedent, even if the Casey court convinced itself otherwise with half-hearted arguments about reliance, etc.
Finally, I'll take my chances with various slippery slopes on this one.
At least we know where you stand. You are not interested in upholding a Constitution that secures individual liberty for ourselves and our progeny against unreasonable or arbitrary government intrusions into matters of individual autonomy and privacy. You are interested in obtaining the results you like. In order to accomplish what you desire, we must burn the Constitution and institute a "majority rules" policy and "minority and individual interests be damned" policy. So long as you and your progeny remain in the majority, all will be well in Steppenwolf world.
If one attempts to unravel Mortkat's unintelligible posts to try to make them comprehensible, he could have been sarcastic when he stated that all jobs and positions must be allocated in accordance with the diversity of our population. He could be arguing that those individuals best suited for the job or position will inevitably find their way to the job or position notwithstanding any societal manipulation to the contrary.
Mortkat could be arguing that Roman Catholic judges are NOT geneticially superior to NON-Roman Catholic judges, but given their CULTURAL upbringing, Roman Catholic judges will occupy the high court in greater numbers than Non-Catholic judges in the same manner that Asians occupy academic slots at MIT in far greater numbers than African Americans.
Perhaps Mortkat is arguing that no amount of money spent educating NON-Roman Catholics nor any amount of affirmative action in placing NON-Roman Catholic judges on the bench will ever change the fact that Roman Catholics simply outclass everyone else and will inevitably sit on the Supreme Court.
Regardless of how we TRY to interpret Mortkat's succession of posts to TRY to make them intelligible; his posts are UNINTELLIGIBLE and we are left guessing with respect to whatever point he is trying to make. Instead of trying to unravel a litany of disconnected words that are largely incomprehensible and tend to have no apparent relevance to the topic, I would prefer for Mortkat to simply communicate in a comprehensible manner.
Debra_Law wrote:Steppenwolf wrote:Debra_Law wrote:Steppenwolf wrote:I'm anti-Roe myself—I'd love to see it overturned.
Be careful what you wish for, Steppenwolf. The consequences could be dire for "our progeny" if Roe v. Wade was overturned because the blades of oppression swing both ways.
The primary purpose of the Constitution is to SECURE the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our progeny--for all the generations to come. It is possible that future generations will be faced with population control concerns. Would you want the government to have the power to force you to have an abortion to serve a legitimate state interest in population control?
Due process of law has a substantive component that protects individual liberty from arbitrary (unreasonable) government infringements or deprivations. As set forth in Supreme Court cases, "If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child. . . .The Constitution protects individuals, men and women alike, from unjustified state interference. . . ."
If the Constitution is not interpreted to SECURE an individual's right to privacy, the state would not only have the power to prohibit abortions to serve the state interests, but it would also have the power to require abortions to serve the state interests. Be careful what you wish for and think long about the country you're handing down to your children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. Their problems and issues will be different than ours, but a Constitution that secures liberty from oppressive laws must endure for all time.
Ah yes, I’ve argued with you at length about this before (A2K is too slow for me to find the thread). As you may or may not recall, I don’t believe that Roe and its progeny fit well into the existing corpus of privacy jurisprudence -- excluding the Roe line itself, of course. Excising that line of cases could be achieved with minimal damage to other rights. Nor will I even concede that privacy as a whole should be enshrined in “due process” anyway, although I don’t expect the wholesale abandonment of substantive DP any time soon.
Yes, I realize my opinions don't reflect "the law of the land" (existing precedent in Roe, Casey, etc.), as you’re fond of saying (if my recollection serves me). I'm also fully aware that DP presently has a substantive component under existing caselaw, however oxymoronic that branch of con law might be. My opinion is based upon what I perceive the law should be, as a matter of textual interpretation and policy, not about what the law is as of the present date. After all, this will ultimately be the argument before the Court should the subject arise again -- and it will. They are free to overrule their own precedent, even if the Casey court convinced itself otherwise with half-hearted arguments about reliance, etc.
Finally, I’ll take my chances with various slippery slopes on this one
At least we know where you stand. You are not interested in upholding a Constitution that secures individual liberty for ourselves and our progeny against unreasonable or arbitrary government intrusions into matters of individual autonomy and privacy. You are interested in obtaining the results you like. In order to accomplish what you desire, we must burn the Constitution and institute a "majority rules" policy and "minority and individual interests be damned" policy. So long as you and your progeny remain in the majority, all will be well in Steppenwolf world.
Burn the constitution, eh? I merely suggest a meaningful definition of "due process"—one that doesn’t include whatever cause-de-jour favored by the Court. Now that the Court has shifted its ideological tilt, you may someday agree with me. It’s so easy to pack your favorite policy goals into “due process” (or any other vague clause), but what will you say when it’s packed with the policy goals of your opponents? I’m sure you weren’t a fan of either Lochner or Dred Scott, but that’s boundless “due process” for you.
No, I’ve never stated that majority rule should control constitutional interpretation. I simply think that "process" doesn't = "substance," and nothing in the text of the 14th amendment or its history suggests anything about abortion. So I'll keep the constitution, and I'll burn malformed precedent. And I won't hear any arguments about the inviolability of precedent. When Brown v. Board was handed down, and Plessy rejected, I don’t recall any constitution burning. And that’s only the most famous of the Court’s numerous rejections of precedent.
